Want to get rid of Putin? Be careful what you wish for

By DMITRY SHLAPENTOKHThe Providence Journal

Tuesday

Jan 31, 2012 at 12:01 AMJan 31, 2012 at 12:15 AM

The recent demonstrations in Moscow show clear signs of displeasure with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the former and presumably soon-to-be-elected, again, president of Russia. Instead of appearing charismatic, almost majestic, as seen by the public in the beginning of his first tenure, he is now viewed as inept, corrupt and even ridiculous by the demonstrators, at least judging by the posters they carried.

What is the reason for such an abrupt change in the public mood? A brief reminder of the past is needed here.

One should remember Russia at the end of the late President Boris Yeltsin’s rule, when criminality and general insecurity prevailed. Putin emerged as a tough ruler who would bring order and security. His KGB credentials were viewed not as a liability but as an asset. The public almost divinized him for this in the same way the European public had done with the European kings of the 16th and 17th centuries, who were seen as the only antidote to anarchy. By the 18th and 19th centuries, European society had become fairly stable and, in a way, self-policing, and the image of the kings had changed from that of demigods to corrupt and inept tyrants whose rule benefitted only a small group of cronies.

Time has flowed quickly in the 21st century so far, and it has needed less than a generation to make Russia in general and Moscow in particular much safer than it had been only a few years before. In many ways, Moscow became normal, at least from the Western perspective.

Putin has a problem not just with Moscow but also with provincial Russia. But here is an important caveat: Provincial folk have a problem not just with Putin but also with Moscow and the whole central government. There may be good reason for grievances. All local taxes are going to Moscow, which then doles out the funds to the provinces according to its discretion. Moscow-registered companies use the resources of the provinces with no benefit to the provinces.

Russia’s provincial capitals, such as Yekaterinburg, in the Ural Mountains — where I was recently — have everything that Moscow has, from super-modern airports to elaborate and vibrant theaters. The provinces have also become assertive in a number of ways. The local law enforcement agencies have become quite predisposed in favor of the locals and reluctant to treat them harshly.

While provincials have a desire to distance themselves from the capital, Muscovites quite dislike provincials and wish to make it as hard as possible for them to move to the city. Even less desirable are the country’s numerous minorities, especially from the North Caucasus. This goes along with the general feeling, shared by a considerable part of the population, that Russia is still too big and is populated by too many ethnic minorities living in their enclaves, and that these enclaves, especially those in the North Caucasus, should be shed.

What would happen if Putin were to be replaced, even legally? The new regime would most likely follow the demands of the public and cut the North Caucasus from Russia.

Chechnya and nearby regions could be transformed into a new edition of Afghanistan, close to Europe. The provincial governors would assert their increasing independence from Moscow, if not de jure, at least de facto. They would increasingly gravitate to other global centers. The Far East and possibly Siberia would look more and more to China.

Indeed, China, not the West, is increasingly seen by the residents as the place of economic opportunity.

During my recent trip to the Urals, I took a taxi with foreign bank notes plastered on the windows of the car as a symbol of prosperity. In the beginning of the post-Soviet era, it would definitely have been U.S. dollars, most often $100 bills; now, it was Chinese currency.

The Russian Far East and Siberian drift to the East would hardly help the West to stand against a rising China, and the chaos in the North Caucasus would present even more serious problems for the West and Russia alike. This should shed a different light on Putin’s presidency.

He can, indeed, be autocratic and exhibit some residual imperialist propensities. Still, his removal, especially suddenly, could well create many problems for the West and even for Russians.

While assessing the possibility of regime change in Moscow, one should remember that the result of revolution is often quite different from that desired.

Dmitry Shlapentokh is an associate professor of history atIndiana University-South Bend.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.

Advertise

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
The Intelligencer ~ One Oxford Valley, 2300 East Lincoln Highway, Suite 500D, Langhorne, PA, 19047 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service